THE level of debate on poverty in West Dunbartonshire is pre-historic.

In the first instance it’s presented in terms of a very old and crude claim and counter-claim approach to poverty that’s not evidence-based.

This argument about who is “poor” and who is “rich”, the “better off” and the “worse off”, fails to take standards into account.

In that event we should leave the crude conflict between “rich and poor” behind and debate standards of living and how to define that in terms of legal rights.

To begin with, human beings are free agents with a conscience. They have to be valued and respected properly as such.

We have a human need to be productive and creative that must be met. And we have consumption needs that must be met.

These are the core human justice issues that remain to be resolved. Currently, because of the system of co-operation we have inherited from the past, we are far removed from that.

The material impoverishment of the working class is increasing, the spiritual impoverishment of the ruling class is increasing and all West Dunbartonshire Council and the “competent authorities” can do is parrot buzzwords about “tackling poverty”.

But what “poverty” means to them is the pre-historic definition – material deprivation on the material consumption side. Their “poor” are largely empty stomachs that need to be fed like animals.

What’s required is agreed human standards of living. Instead the “competent authorities” react to the after-the-fact consequences and symptoms of a system that guarantees failure and economic and social breakdown to begin with.

They “tackle” the after-effects, not the predominant cause of poverty.